Vegan Politics: The Logical Fallacies Fad.
02 July 2017 [link youtube]
Youtube Automatic Transcription
in general on this channel I don't like
to deal with controversy at the moment I like to talk about issues in a way that I'm going to find meaningful myself if I come back and watch this video in the future five years from now ten years from now etc they are just as my shoulder you can see a fresh durian and two mangoes on the edge of my capable wonder that before we Aronian alright we have a fashion right now within the digital vegan demi-monde of vegans shutting down one another and vegans shutting down meat eaters with formal logical fallacies and in these videos talking with us in the past some of those videos ended up being deleted for reasons not worth rehearsing here talking about this problem alec field on this problem is almost the perfect inverse of something I dealt with but two years ago on this channel I've given a lot of advice for how vegans should deal with hostile meteors in conversations when meteors want to confront you with very barbed questions with questions that lead you into the uncomfortable position of having to discuss the details of the rates of cancer and heart attack of a vegan diet versus a meeting diet when they press you on issues in a way that's ultimately just cynical and trying to make you live with a fool and doesn't express sincere odors and learn more about veganism how to actually respond to those those questions and issues I feel that the emphasis on formal logical fallacies instead puts vegans in this cynical position and puts the meat eaters in the awful position of trying to have a sincere conversation with a vegan who is not really being sincere and open with them right that's not the position I want to be in in the pain even when people are guilty of form of logical fallacies I think it's really worth well even if you note that if you say look it's easy logical fallacy but now setting that aside the next step for me is I'm going to try to address your real concern your real question or your real objection despite the fact that you've expressed it in a flawed way you've made a mistake you basically made an error stating it in a fallacious manner and that takes just good faith and sincerity and openness to hearing with the person the other side the argument as say there's a fallacy called the too-cool quick foul see two quick ways Wikipedia Latin the title of the Wikipedia article a lot of people in British politics call it what the what about fallacy or what about ISM I've heard that used and there are a lot of specific examples dealing with Russia Russia versus the United States and this use of this type of fallacious reasoning to quickly fallacy really is referring to someone who cynically distracts you from the issue that you want to really debate by pointing to a spurious issue and saying well you also are guilty of this transgression or sin so in a situation like Cambodia history of Cambodia somebody might be sincerely trying to talk about mass murder in political violence in Cambodia and somebody else may cynically comeback by saying well what about this other example well here you are talking about Cambodia what about Indonesia here you are talking about the United States and the body-count they're responsible for in the Vietnam War but you're not talking about the Soviet Union and the body-count that they're responsible for in Afghanistan right it is a fallacy and it can be used cynically it can be used angrily it can't be used to just try to derail the conversation but even so I think the mature and correct thing to do you can note it because it will look this is a too quickly fallacy however I understand your point I understand your concern and I understand the question rising and then just move right on to treat the substance of this conversation seriously what good does it do to shut someone down and snub them and say this is a formal logical fallacy because even though it is a fallacy they're probably expressing a real concern in a somewhat flawed form their real concern might be that you're employing a double standard that you're not holding Cambodia to the same standard you would hold Indonesia to and asking why and that's that's a reasonable question even if it stayed in unreasonable way and if somebody did that to me and I've been in situations like that of a lot of experience talking about very tense political issues from Cambodia to Canada whether talking about First Nations forced assimilation government policy against First Nations very tense issue in Canada talking with history of Cambodia district China history of Russia or what have you upload experience less conversation but it's actually it's really magnanimous and useful and moves the conversation forward to say back to someone okay I understand the point you're trying to make you can even just suggest the inspirations okay so I think what you're asking about really is this what you're really asking is are we holding Cambodia to an unreasonable standard compared to how we treat other countries with a similar level of political violence is Cambodia facing a different set of consequences a different you know a different set of criteria from Indonesia Afghanistan and again in the Toba Vietnam war or something are we holding the United States to a different standard than we would hold the Soviet Union to etc so those questions may be worth asking it may be worth reflecting on even if they're introduced in the conversation in the form of a tuple a fallacy of a formal logical fallacy right if you're in a conversation with somebody and you're not willing in that sense to give them the benefit of the doubt you're not willing to say okay I I'm willing to assume that you're trying to make a reasonable point that you're you're trying to ask a meaningful question why you having the conversation at all you know are these actually debates people are having or he just is this just you know a new genre of YouTube entertainment of two sides trying to show who can be more cynical and mean-spirited than the other you know I was talking recently to one of my fellow vegans and the level of malice I get from other vegans meat eaters in general don't treat me that bad I got to tell you I'm starting to another vegan who was supposed to be setting up a Skype conversation with me and you know he was telling me what he found offensive on my channel and I think he's really not capable understanding that I was not trying to prove him wrong I wasn't trying to say no objectively this material of God isn't offensive I was really just interested in hearing his perspective hearing his right here and why he found this material oh that's it they're going to talk it through a bit and we were doing it by email because I wanted to get out of the way before we recorded the podcast and he said explicitly he did not want that type of conversation happened during the buggers Oh fair enough so let's talk about an Alva email and then during the podcast we won't have any of this step on the table and one of any of this stuff onto the table it'll be it'll be taken care of um I said to them okay look this material you find offensive on my channel I I understand that some people would find it offensive but what I can't understand is why you would find a defensive given that you don't find similar material offensive or much worse material offensive when during writer does it you've been a fan of during writer for many many years and much more harsh much more castigating much more insulting material on during writers Channel you don't find offensive but you're telling me you really do find a defense of myself so why is that can we talk about that you know and I don't really even have any agenda I'm not really trying to prove them wrong but to me that is worth talking about it is a question of why are you holding me and why are you holding during writer to two very different standards and for me that conversation doesn't have to end with one side being writer or the other side being right from the employee path you just communicated look I'm being honest you I went back and watch this video mine again that you're complaining about I watched what I had to say about this again because you've complained to me about it and I honestly do not find it offensive I do not find my own video offensive and while I can understand that somebody would I can't understand why you do so I'm just trying to find that out I'm machete Sinfonia and you respond to this by accusing me of a to Colquitt fallacy and just trying to shut me down and then when I explained no I actually do not believe that is a to culpability I don't know if asking a question can be a to quote a fallacy or trying to engage someone in again another logical concept that seems to be out of fashion within these right now is Socratic method Socratic method in some ways gets its work shoes are exaggerated and its vices are also exaggerated it sort of strange how many perceptions and misperceptions or of what's great myth is and and what it means but Socratic method would be a lot better with all its flaws with all its shortcomings Socratic method would be a lot better than what I see going on under the name of Reason under the name of logic because what I see is people who employ the concept of reason with a capital R while actually being very unreasonable I see no real openness to dealing with the dealing with the topic being discussed or understanding what the other person's perspective is and in many of these conversations if these are between these who's a witness mechanism there's nothing to win and there's nothing to lose for me the objective of the conversation is precisely just mutual understanding it's just for me to understand what that person's perspective is where they're coming from why the company and so in this conversations another vegan youtuber lately he completely missed the point when I said to it look I don't want you to apologize he said to me repeatedly he assumed that my purpose in this debate of this conversation was to try to force him to make a public apology I said no no I'm not sure did at all but he said a couple of times but were they really explicitly he said he assumed that he assumed that I wanted to present him with a specific list of exactly what he said in which videos and how long he is why he's wrong for these things why should as a note that's not what I'm trying to do I'm really positively in an open mind away just trying to understand what your perspective is so we can move on you know so we can do this podcast and not have this stuff you know clutter girth budgets not have any kind of compliments I'm actually interested in just hearing its perspective although what you had to say was for my perspective amazingly stupid and dishonest and his mean mostly Keisha with me was to choose me again ergative dishonesty was like how can I possibly be more honest on this issue I've given up I'm dumbing it down as much as I can for this guy I'm being as honest and direct as I can for this guy but the truth is his perspective the issues it wasn't just stupid and it wasn't just crazy it was also paranoid and I have dealt with that before talking to vegans a paranoia means many people think paranoia is only a kind of Hollywood movie stare type of how actors portray parent line but when you talk to someone and they feel manipulated and lied to when you're saying something so straightforward right like I'm just saying to him directly look I went back and watch this video again because you complained about it I don't find it offensive I don't understand what you do let's talk as how can I be more honest than that you know this is not being manipulative as I think it's honest just setting this area if you want to deal with it but a paranoid frame of mind is exactly firm about that that responds to that with the kind of fear to think is basically rooted in a sense of weakness that this person feels you're manipulating them feels you're doing something dishonest and misleading even one from my perspective I'm laying my cards flat on the table and just saying hey here's the situation here's the source of tension between us let's talk um my recent experience in talking to idiots really has soured me on reaching out to other vegans on YouTube they asked you I mean as I said before on this channel you got to keep an open heart and open mind you got to get your heart broken and then reach out to people again again I'm still still to this day I'm trying to invite dom Bauer to come on this channel and do a podcast we trying to arrange a podcast for a year that dom Bauer appear on a ballot ciel hasn't happened yet I guess it's been more than here I don't know um you know uh but as came up in my conversation with was vegan revolution that's nothing new to this channel are we chats people time which has a really small channels reach out to medium size and big channels and say look I think there are important issues of the Venus to talk about let's talk but the truth is I do have a kind of criterion but I think I have to enforce more strictly for whether or not I'm going to talk to somebody and that is are they planning are they aspiring to do something positive for the future the vegan movement in the next five years and I got to tell you this this vegan youtubers just argue now he really doesn't I think you can see from the conclusion of my my video we did with vegan revolution the guy uses the name vegan revolution he's not going to do anything revolutionary he's not going to do anything for veganism as a movement in the next five years so you know big or small you know if someone's totally unknown and totally not on YouTube I think that is basically now the criterion fu is where I'm not going to talk to people I'm not going to reach out to people and I'm going to reply to people if there's no possibility there of them doing something positive for veganism no they're not even planning or aspiring or hoping to because a lot of us are in circumstances I am right now or you can't do anything right now or you're looking around and planning and doing the research and look at the options you may not have good options right now but if that aspiration do something positive isn't there I just I just don't see why I should tolerate you know what I've been getting back from see one look I mean obviously there's also built on negative experiences people like vegan cheetah and during writer himself I've been through so much of this and it's a very simple question but deserves to be asked of vegan cheetah AB durianrider of many of these other channels what are you planning to do in the next five years and almost any positive answer is worth listening to it's worth responding to is worth debating and it may influence others right I had some contact lately with just some Facebook messages back and forth with Joey carb strong you know and he said the simplest thing but it's such a positive attitude to have Joey carb strong his channel was very different from mine his approach is very different than mine and in the past he was during writers support and I was not Joey Krebs from you know wrote to me or replied to me and he just said look you know your channel is so different for mine but I think that's great because we need different kinds of channels for different types of people we need veganism we need vegan activism being presented to the public in with myriad different strategies different tactics different packages even you know different philosophies because veganism is a message that needs to reach all kinds of different people and for anyone who's engaged in any kind of activism I mean look up to a point you know I don't believe in violence and I've really been lying to the public there all kinds of things that from your hard limits where I don't accept the movement is as legitimate if it crosses those are limits but sure I mean I you know that's fundamentally a very positive attitude state which is look I may not understand you I mean understand where you come from I may not appreciate your content I may not be a fan of your channel I mean on a cure god that etc but I can recognize we need a diversity of voices because we're reaching the world's most diverse audience we're not just reaching vegans who are incredibly diverse group of people we're also reaching all the previous the people who are meat-eaters today but who might contribute positively to this movement in future and shutting someone down in mid-sentence and saying that's a logical fallacy snubbing some of them I just don't see how that can ever really be a positive tool in our toolbox in these kinds of difficult conversations and negotiations
to deal with controversy at the moment I like to talk about issues in a way that I'm going to find meaningful myself if I come back and watch this video in the future five years from now ten years from now etc they are just as my shoulder you can see a fresh durian and two mangoes on the edge of my capable wonder that before we Aronian alright we have a fashion right now within the digital vegan demi-monde of vegans shutting down one another and vegans shutting down meat eaters with formal logical fallacies and in these videos talking with us in the past some of those videos ended up being deleted for reasons not worth rehearsing here talking about this problem alec field on this problem is almost the perfect inverse of something I dealt with but two years ago on this channel I've given a lot of advice for how vegans should deal with hostile meteors in conversations when meteors want to confront you with very barbed questions with questions that lead you into the uncomfortable position of having to discuss the details of the rates of cancer and heart attack of a vegan diet versus a meeting diet when they press you on issues in a way that's ultimately just cynical and trying to make you live with a fool and doesn't express sincere odors and learn more about veganism how to actually respond to those those questions and issues I feel that the emphasis on formal logical fallacies instead puts vegans in this cynical position and puts the meat eaters in the awful position of trying to have a sincere conversation with a vegan who is not really being sincere and open with them right that's not the position I want to be in in the pain even when people are guilty of form of logical fallacies I think it's really worth well even if you note that if you say look it's easy logical fallacy but now setting that aside the next step for me is I'm going to try to address your real concern your real question or your real objection despite the fact that you've expressed it in a flawed way you've made a mistake you basically made an error stating it in a fallacious manner and that takes just good faith and sincerity and openness to hearing with the person the other side the argument as say there's a fallacy called the too-cool quick foul see two quick ways Wikipedia Latin the title of the Wikipedia article a lot of people in British politics call it what the what about fallacy or what about ISM I've heard that used and there are a lot of specific examples dealing with Russia Russia versus the United States and this use of this type of fallacious reasoning to quickly fallacy really is referring to someone who cynically distracts you from the issue that you want to really debate by pointing to a spurious issue and saying well you also are guilty of this transgression or sin so in a situation like Cambodia history of Cambodia somebody might be sincerely trying to talk about mass murder in political violence in Cambodia and somebody else may cynically comeback by saying well what about this other example well here you are talking about Cambodia what about Indonesia here you are talking about the United States and the body-count they're responsible for in the Vietnam War but you're not talking about the Soviet Union and the body-count that they're responsible for in Afghanistan right it is a fallacy and it can be used cynically it can be used angrily it can't be used to just try to derail the conversation but even so I think the mature and correct thing to do you can note it because it will look this is a too quickly fallacy however I understand your point I understand your concern and I understand the question rising and then just move right on to treat the substance of this conversation seriously what good does it do to shut someone down and snub them and say this is a formal logical fallacy because even though it is a fallacy they're probably expressing a real concern in a somewhat flawed form their real concern might be that you're employing a double standard that you're not holding Cambodia to the same standard you would hold Indonesia to and asking why and that's that's a reasonable question even if it stayed in unreasonable way and if somebody did that to me and I've been in situations like that of a lot of experience talking about very tense political issues from Cambodia to Canada whether talking about First Nations forced assimilation government policy against First Nations very tense issue in Canada talking with history of Cambodia district China history of Russia or what have you upload experience less conversation but it's actually it's really magnanimous and useful and moves the conversation forward to say back to someone okay I understand the point you're trying to make you can even just suggest the inspirations okay so I think what you're asking about really is this what you're really asking is are we holding Cambodia to an unreasonable standard compared to how we treat other countries with a similar level of political violence is Cambodia facing a different set of consequences a different you know a different set of criteria from Indonesia Afghanistan and again in the Toba Vietnam war or something are we holding the United States to a different standard than we would hold the Soviet Union to etc so those questions may be worth asking it may be worth reflecting on even if they're introduced in the conversation in the form of a tuple a fallacy of a formal logical fallacy right if you're in a conversation with somebody and you're not willing in that sense to give them the benefit of the doubt you're not willing to say okay I I'm willing to assume that you're trying to make a reasonable point that you're you're trying to ask a meaningful question why you having the conversation at all you know are these actually debates people are having or he just is this just you know a new genre of YouTube entertainment of two sides trying to show who can be more cynical and mean-spirited than the other you know I was talking recently to one of my fellow vegans and the level of malice I get from other vegans meat eaters in general don't treat me that bad I got to tell you I'm starting to another vegan who was supposed to be setting up a Skype conversation with me and you know he was telling me what he found offensive on my channel and I think he's really not capable understanding that I was not trying to prove him wrong I wasn't trying to say no objectively this material of God isn't offensive I was really just interested in hearing his perspective hearing his right here and why he found this material oh that's it they're going to talk it through a bit and we were doing it by email because I wanted to get out of the way before we recorded the podcast and he said explicitly he did not want that type of conversation happened during the buggers Oh fair enough so let's talk about an Alva email and then during the podcast we won't have any of this step on the table and one of any of this stuff onto the table it'll be it'll be taken care of um I said to them okay look this material you find offensive on my channel I I understand that some people would find it offensive but what I can't understand is why you would find a defensive given that you don't find similar material offensive or much worse material offensive when during writer does it you've been a fan of during writer for many many years and much more harsh much more castigating much more insulting material on during writers Channel you don't find offensive but you're telling me you really do find a defense of myself so why is that can we talk about that you know and I don't really even have any agenda I'm not really trying to prove them wrong but to me that is worth talking about it is a question of why are you holding me and why are you holding during writer to two very different standards and for me that conversation doesn't have to end with one side being writer or the other side being right from the employee path you just communicated look I'm being honest you I went back and watch this video mine again that you're complaining about I watched what I had to say about this again because you've complained to me about it and I honestly do not find it offensive I do not find my own video offensive and while I can understand that somebody would I can't understand why you do so I'm just trying to find that out I'm machete Sinfonia and you respond to this by accusing me of a to Colquitt fallacy and just trying to shut me down and then when I explained no I actually do not believe that is a to culpability I don't know if asking a question can be a to quote a fallacy or trying to engage someone in again another logical concept that seems to be out of fashion within these right now is Socratic method Socratic method in some ways gets its work shoes are exaggerated and its vices are also exaggerated it sort of strange how many perceptions and misperceptions or of what's great myth is and and what it means but Socratic method would be a lot better with all its flaws with all its shortcomings Socratic method would be a lot better than what I see going on under the name of Reason under the name of logic because what I see is people who employ the concept of reason with a capital R while actually being very unreasonable I see no real openness to dealing with the dealing with the topic being discussed or understanding what the other person's perspective is and in many of these conversations if these are between these who's a witness mechanism there's nothing to win and there's nothing to lose for me the objective of the conversation is precisely just mutual understanding it's just for me to understand what that person's perspective is where they're coming from why the company and so in this conversations another vegan youtuber lately he completely missed the point when I said to it look I don't want you to apologize he said to me repeatedly he assumed that my purpose in this debate of this conversation was to try to force him to make a public apology I said no no I'm not sure did at all but he said a couple of times but were they really explicitly he said he assumed that he assumed that I wanted to present him with a specific list of exactly what he said in which videos and how long he is why he's wrong for these things why should as a note that's not what I'm trying to do I'm really positively in an open mind away just trying to understand what your perspective is so we can move on you know so we can do this podcast and not have this stuff you know clutter girth budgets not have any kind of compliments I'm actually interested in just hearing its perspective although what you had to say was for my perspective amazingly stupid and dishonest and his mean mostly Keisha with me was to choose me again ergative dishonesty was like how can I possibly be more honest on this issue I've given up I'm dumbing it down as much as I can for this guy I'm being as honest and direct as I can for this guy but the truth is his perspective the issues it wasn't just stupid and it wasn't just crazy it was also paranoid and I have dealt with that before talking to vegans a paranoia means many people think paranoia is only a kind of Hollywood movie stare type of how actors portray parent line but when you talk to someone and they feel manipulated and lied to when you're saying something so straightforward right like I'm just saying to him directly look I went back and watch this video again because you complained about it I don't find it offensive I don't understand what you do let's talk as how can I be more honest than that you know this is not being manipulative as I think it's honest just setting this area if you want to deal with it but a paranoid frame of mind is exactly firm about that that responds to that with the kind of fear to think is basically rooted in a sense of weakness that this person feels you're manipulating them feels you're doing something dishonest and misleading even one from my perspective I'm laying my cards flat on the table and just saying hey here's the situation here's the source of tension between us let's talk um my recent experience in talking to idiots really has soured me on reaching out to other vegans on YouTube they asked you I mean as I said before on this channel you got to keep an open heart and open mind you got to get your heart broken and then reach out to people again again I'm still still to this day I'm trying to invite dom Bauer to come on this channel and do a podcast we trying to arrange a podcast for a year that dom Bauer appear on a ballot ciel hasn't happened yet I guess it's been more than here I don't know um you know uh but as came up in my conversation with was vegan revolution that's nothing new to this channel are we chats people time which has a really small channels reach out to medium size and big channels and say look I think there are important issues of the Venus to talk about let's talk but the truth is I do have a kind of criterion but I think I have to enforce more strictly for whether or not I'm going to talk to somebody and that is are they planning are they aspiring to do something positive for the future the vegan movement in the next five years and I got to tell you this this vegan youtubers just argue now he really doesn't I think you can see from the conclusion of my my video we did with vegan revolution the guy uses the name vegan revolution he's not going to do anything revolutionary he's not going to do anything for veganism as a movement in the next five years so you know big or small you know if someone's totally unknown and totally not on YouTube I think that is basically now the criterion fu is where I'm not going to talk to people I'm not going to reach out to people and I'm going to reply to people if there's no possibility there of them doing something positive for veganism no they're not even planning or aspiring or hoping to because a lot of us are in circumstances I am right now or you can't do anything right now or you're looking around and planning and doing the research and look at the options you may not have good options right now but if that aspiration do something positive isn't there I just I just don't see why I should tolerate you know what I've been getting back from see one look I mean obviously there's also built on negative experiences people like vegan cheetah and during writer himself I've been through so much of this and it's a very simple question but deserves to be asked of vegan cheetah AB durianrider of many of these other channels what are you planning to do in the next five years and almost any positive answer is worth listening to it's worth responding to is worth debating and it may influence others right I had some contact lately with just some Facebook messages back and forth with Joey carb strong you know and he said the simplest thing but it's such a positive attitude to have Joey carb strong his channel was very different from mine his approach is very different than mine and in the past he was during writers support and I was not Joey Krebs from you know wrote to me or replied to me and he just said look you know your channel is so different for mine but I think that's great because we need different kinds of channels for different types of people we need veganism we need vegan activism being presented to the public in with myriad different strategies different tactics different packages even you know different philosophies because veganism is a message that needs to reach all kinds of different people and for anyone who's engaged in any kind of activism I mean look up to a point you know I don't believe in violence and I've really been lying to the public there all kinds of things that from your hard limits where I don't accept the movement is as legitimate if it crosses those are limits but sure I mean I you know that's fundamentally a very positive attitude state which is look I may not understand you I mean understand where you come from I may not appreciate your content I may not be a fan of your channel I mean on a cure god that etc but I can recognize we need a diversity of voices because we're reaching the world's most diverse audience we're not just reaching vegans who are incredibly diverse group of people we're also reaching all the previous the people who are meat-eaters today but who might contribute positively to this movement in future and shutting someone down in mid-sentence and saying that's a logical fallacy snubbing some of them I just don't see how that can ever really be a positive tool in our toolbox in these kinds of difficult conversations and negotiations